Charlie Rangel

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the President is trying desperately hard not to close down the Government and this is why he is signing these resolutions.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, but it is his present thinking and that of, for lack of a better word, the leadership that we could be working here until the election?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that, if we do not reach any agreement, will some method be arranged so that we will have the opportunity to go home to vote on Tuesday?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Representative Dingell and myself, we are re-introducing today the Democratic version of the Medicare and Medicaid give-backs bill, that includes the provisions in the House-passed bill of Thursday, October 26th plus the beneficiary and provider improvements requested by the President and detailed in the Administration's veto letter of October 17th. Yesterday, a version of this bill was introduced (H.R. 5601), but because of mechanical problems in the electronic transmission of the bill, a number of errors occurred. When considering the Democratic position on how to improve the Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP programs, please refer to the bill introduced today H.R. 5612, not to H.R. 5601.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Dingell and I introduced a bill, H.R. 5601, to improve greatly the Medicare and Medicaid bill currently pending before the House and Senate. The following outline describes how we would have significantly improved the nation's health care programs. We saw an opportunity this morning to offer this bill as an amendment to other legislation today, so it was assembled quickly, and I apologize for any technical errors or oversights. Basically, the bill takes the Republican-passed Medicare and Medicaid give-backs bill, cleans up some problems in their coverage and appeals area, and adds in the various items included in the Administration's letter explaining how the bill should be changed to avoid a veto (the Shalala-Lew letter). Mr. Speaker, Democrats will keep trying to improve the Republican Medicare and Medicaid bill. We ask that the majority stop the stonewalling and negotiate with us so that we can mutually deliver a comprehensive improvement in these key social programs. Defeat the Previous Question: Allow Democrats to Offer the Following Amendment democrats take republican-passed medicare/medicaid give-backs bill and make major improvements The alternative includes all the provisions which passed the House Thursday in HR 2614, and makes the following changes and additions: Full hospital Prospective Payment System update for two years; The Republican bill had only a one year update, and cuts in the next two years. Hospitals reeling from BBA cuts need two years of full inflation adjustment. Graduate Medical Education Payments, 2 year freeze at the 6.5 percent, compared to Republican-passed one year freeze, and a cut in the second year. Provides help to nation's premier teaching and research hospitals. Rural Disproportionate Share Hospitals: in addition to the provisions in the Republican-passed bill, provides for a higher level of reimbursement for rural hospitals serving low income individuals. Nursing Home staffing and quality: includes bipartisan proposals to provide an additional $1 billion/5 years to assist nursing homes on improving staffing. Recent studies show that many homes need to make major improvements in staffing levels. Home health agencies: provides a 2 year delay in the 15 percent cut in payments instead of the Republicans 1-year delay. Rural home health agencies, provide a 10 percent bonus for service in rural areas to compensate for the high cost of travel, lower volume of patients seen per hour. Hospice, full two year update, in lieu of the Republicans one-year update. Hospices need increased payments to deal with soaring cost of pharmaceuticals. Puerto Rico Hospitals, improved payments. The Democratic bill includes the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and Senate Finance Committee proposal to increase Puerto Rican hospital payments, which was dropped in the Republican-only negotiations. Medicare+Choice program: Retains the payment improvements in the Republican-passed bill, but provides increases only if the plan commits to stay in a community with a defined package of benefits for a three year period. Medicare Coverage for Individuals with ALS (Lou Gherig's disease): Waives 24-month waiting period for individuals diagnosed with ALS so that they can become eligible for coverage under Medicare immediately. Because of the speed with which ALS progresses, these individuals would likely otherwise be dead before ever getting Medicare coverage. Capps bill cosponsored by 282 House Members. Medicare Appeals provision: makes the provision in the Republican-passed bill workable and similar to the Patient Bill of Rights protections for Medicare beneficiaries. Needlestick safety for workers in public hospitals. Hospital-based SNF and Home Health Agency geographic reclassification (provision from Commerce Committee-reported bill. medicaid and CHIP provisions--from commerce-passed bipartisan package Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Increased Payments: Freeze Medicaid DSH cuts at 2000 levels. Annual update of DSH allotment for inflation beginning in 2001 and thereafter, and eliminates the ``cliff'' in FY 2003 allotments that was in the Republican bill. Optional Coverage of Legal Immigrant Children and Pregnant Women in Medicaid and CHIP: States may extend coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have lawfully resided in the U.S. for 2 years. Sponsors of immigrants would not incur a debt for cost of Medicaid benefits provided and not asked to repay the value of medical care after the 2-year period had been met. Improved/Expanded Outreach Sites for enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP: State option to allow additional entities to determine children ``presumptively eligible'' for health insurance in Medicaid or CHIP. Improving Welfare to Work Transition: Extends Transitional Medicaid Assistance (TMA) program for one additional year. (This program provides Medicaid health insurance for up to one year for families [up to 185 percent of poverty] who are transitioning from welfare to work.) Gives states the option to simplify requirements for reporting eligibility. Gives states that already cover individuals up to 185 percent the option to be exempt from TMA requirement. Improved Outreach/Enrollment in Cost-Sharing Assistance Programs for Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries: Secretary of HHS to consult with states, beneficiary groups to develop a simplified application form for applying for Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) and Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) programs. Secretary would make form available in all Social Security offices, as well as other sites frequented by seniors within one year of enactment. Health Insurance for Disabled Children: Democrats include the Family Opportunity Act which allows working families with incomes above the Social Security limit to buy-in to Medicaid coverage. Medicaid recognition of physician assistant (PA) services.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California gave a lot of answers to questions that never were asked, but if we are going to get out of this Congress, and he represents the moderate view on the other side, we have far more difficulties that I expected. All we are asking is that we vote down the previous question to give us an opportunity to create a rule that can deal with some of the problems that keep us here locked into the Congress. I would like to believe on the question of minimum wage that there are just as many Republicans that would like to get a vote on this as there are Democrats. This would give us an opportunity not only to correct the mistake that obviously has been made by the Republicans, but to give us once again an opportunity to go to the table and work out something that we can conclude is good for the American people and go home. Clearly, we have a bill before us, the St. Croix Island Heritage Act; and Republicans now are trying to put the minimum wage repeal correction on it, which means they want to correct the mistake that they have made. We want to correct both of these mistakes by having a better rule that gives us an opportunity to have a balanced budget giveback bill that really helps the hospitals in the rural areas and the inner- cities. And, certainly, this would give us an opportunity to get out of Washington and get back home and get into our districts. It makes no difference how much we lock into what we honestly believe. The only way we can succeed is by coming together in some type of an agreement. We all may not get all of the things that we want, but certainly there is some basic things that we think that should be included in a bill for us to get home. The rural disproportionate share hospitals, in addition to provisions in the Republican-passed bill, provides for higher level of reimbursement for rural hospitals that are serving low-income individuals. My colleagues are not going to tell me that any national, State, or regional hospital association would not believe that hospitals are really having fiscal problems, whether in the rural areas or whether in the inner-cities, because low-income people or working people with no insurance have an inability to pay. This is something that we should want to fix, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, so as Republicans have made mistakes with the minimum wage in not wanting to repeal it in its entirety, why not come back, revisit it, and give a minimum wage for all the American people to have, and also include with that a decent tax cut for small business employers. Let us try to work together and get out of here and go home and try to earn reelection, at least for the Democrats.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize a group of twenty distinguished American World War II veterans, the survivors of the U.S.S. Lansdale. Fifty-six and a half years ago, on April 20, 1944, these fine heroes survived the tragic German aerial torpedo attack that sank the U.S.S. Lansdale. I join the survivors in honoring the memory of the forty-seven crew members who sacrificed their lives that fateful day. They will all be remembered at the World War II Memorial, where construction is scheduled to begin Saturday, November 11, 2000. The U.S.S. Lansdale was on convoy duty protecting ships transporting men and materials to the Italian campaign when a group of German warplanes attacked off the Algerian coast. The ship was nearly split in half by the second torpedo fired after dodging the first one. The Coast Guard was able to rescue 235 survivors from the surrounding waters. Among these men was my very dear friend and long time New York County District Attorney, the Honorable Robert J. Morgethau, who served as the Lansdale's Executive Officer and Navigator. It is with great pride that I acknowledge this group of Americans who demonstrated tremendous courage and commitment to our fine nation. Their legacy, both to our country and to the protection of democracy the world over, will not be forgotten. Please join me in my praise of the following gentlemen who will convene here in Washington over Veterans Day weekend for the World War II Memorial ground breaking ceremony: Edward S. Brookes of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Alvin S. Caplan of New Orleans, Louisiana. Mr. Rod Dugger of Milton, Florida. Angelo Di Palma of Providence, Rhode Island. Robert Dott of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. John L. Eden of Abingdon, Virginia. Marshall Geller of Ocean Hills, California. Peter P. Jannotti of Jacksonville, Florida. Al Macklin of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Raymond A. Miller of Watertown, Massachusetts. Ben Montenegro of Ashland, Massachusetts. Robert M. Morgenthau of New York, New York. John A. Peterson of Seaside Park, New Jersey. Edward Rubinstein of Sun Lakes, Arizona. George Shanabrough of Dallastown, Pennsylvania. George T. Sinclair of Norfolk, Virginia. Peter J. Soler of Cicero, New York. John Tweedie of Horse Shore, North Carolina. Philip Waldron of Lexington, Massachusetts. Charles C. Wales of West Stockbridge, Massachusetts.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to bring to your attention an amendment which I introduced the first session of the 106th Congress. H.J. Res. 39, The Home Amendment ``would provide for a Constitutional amendment requiring that all citizens of the United States shall have a right to a home, which shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State.'' Despite the economic growth that has brought unprecedented prosperity to the nation, we are still faced with shortages of housing and affordable rents, particularly in larger cities such as New York. Indeed, many people have not been included in the economic windfall of the 1990's. I first introduced this amendment during the 104th Congress, and again in the 105th at the request of Reverend Dr. M. Moran Weston, who was actually the inspiration behind the development of this legislation. Weston, who for many years served as pastor of St. Philip's Church in my 15th Congressional District of New York, is the Founder and long time President of the National Association for Affordable Housing. One of our community's greatest religious leaders, his genuine concern for people who lacked the most basic need, a descent place to live, inspired him to do more. This renowned Harlem pastor responded as an example to others, by playing a leading role in renovating a block on Harlem's 135th Street. As a member of the original board of directors of Carver Federal Savings & Loan in my congressional district, he was the sponsor of a federal government guaranteed renovation project, a 198-unit development, which he viewed as an early step in the creation of a ``New Harlem.'' It was his inspiration and way of desire for a better life for all people, that led to my introduction of this amendment. Though Reverend Weston no longer resides in my congressional district, his many contributions to our community over the years, have not gone unnoticed or have been forgotten by this Congressman or the people of New York. Only last year that Dr. Weston was named with a Distinguished Lectureship in Urban and Public Policy established in his name by Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. The first two speakers in the lecture series were Chairman of Fannie Mae Franklin Raines and Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo. It is my hope that on behalf of Reverend Dr. M. Moran Weston, and millions of people who would benefit from H.J. Res. 39, that we support this amendment, and look forward to its enactment.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, as the dean of the New York State Delegation, let me say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) you are a class act no matter what party label that you have had, working with you in the delegation, always the first thing that you had as a priority was what was good for our State. And so, coming over to the Democratic side, we did not have to find out who you were. You were a quality Member there. And so, from what I hear, there is a life outside of the Congress and I am confident that God would bless you with good fortune for you and Barbara. And you can count on our friendship in the delegation and I might say on both sides of that aisle to guide and support you in whatever you decide. Godspeed.

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that if there are differences in the bill that he seriously hopes that we could work it out. That makes a lot of sense, and that is why probably he is not a part of the Republican leadership. The reason we have a veto here is because somebody on the other side of this aisle decided that they did not want to work out anything. How do they think we are going to get out of here unless they talk to somebody? They do not have to talk to me, but they can talk to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). They can talk to someone in the White House. They do not even talk to themselves. And now they come here and force the President to say that he is going to veto it merely because they have not discussed anything. There are some good things in this bill. There are things that can be worked out in this bill. I have worked with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) on the school construction thing. We did not always agree on everything, but we sat and we worked until we made certain that we got it out. Now what is happening? With all due respect to the Committee on Small Business, we have a major tax initiative coming to the floor on a vehicle. Well, I respect the integrity and the reputation of the Committee on Ways and Means. And whether we are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, this is not the way to run a railroad. It is wrong to bring out a tax bill in the middle of the night. It is wrong not to consult with the President. And it is wrong not to consult with our colleagues who are trying to work this out. So if they need a veto to get their attention, if they need a veto in order to come and sit down and do this thing right, if they need a veto so we can wrap up our business and get home, well, my brothers and sisters have got it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Parliamentarian whether it is within the rules of this House for a person to discuss the presidential campaign in the course of our legislative debate.

Mr. RANGEL. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentlewoman from Connecticut is on the floor with all of her candor. I would ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut to pay particular attention to what I am saying so that she might take down my words if they appear to mislead. Because I know that the President of these United States has written to the Republican leadership to say basically, Can we talk? Can we talk taxes? Can we talk about a $250 billion tax cut over 10 years? I know that. I also know that the Republican leadership, rather than take these tax issues to the United States Congress, rather than take them to the House of Representatives, rather than take them to the committee which the gentlewoman from Connecticut and I are privileged to serve, sought not to take it to the Committee on Ways and Means. I would think the best way to deal with this is to leave the floor because the deception that is going on here today is that most people thought that when we adjourned yesterday, we adjourned yesterday. I want my words taken down to say that it is a fraud on the American people to say that we adjourned yesterday 8 o'clock this morning in order to trick the American people into believing that yesterday is today. If you want to take my words down, we will go to the Parliamentarian and ask does that make any sense. Does it make any sense to have a tax bill not come out of the tax committee? How dare them think that is what is best. The gentlewoman from Connecticut said that she and I had come to a state of mind in terms of a bill that has 230 cosponsors as to how we can modernize and how we can construct new schools. Would Republican leadership talk with Democrats about how we could work out something, like the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I have worked out? Would they call the White House and ask whether or not they can work out something? For whatever reason, the Republicans are looking for a train wreck. They are asking for a veto, because each and every thing that the President has asked for they gave it to him, but put in a poison pill with each and every one of those things. Sure, we want to improve the Medicaid and Medicare bill and give it back. Why is it you leave out hospitals and put in HMOs? There are things we can do, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Members of Congress. All of a sudden we are supposed to go home now and say we do not need the Congress. A handful of Republicans can ignore the President; a handful of Republicans. They do not go to the Republican committee members, they do not go to their Democrat counterparts, they do not go to the President of the United States. They just figure that they are going to get out of here and just are going to bring anything to the floor. Well, it is not going to work that way. If we want to get out of here with some semblance of mutual respect, if we want to give credibility to the House of Representatives, we have to respect our committee system, and no one is going to tell us what to do and what to vote for and what to pass, and the President reserves the right to veto.

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate a long-time constituent of the 15th Congressional District of New York and certainly a very dear friend, George H. Weldon, Sr. On September 28, 2000, George Weldon will receive the Tenth Annual Samuel DeWitt Proctor Phoenix Award from the Abyssinian Development Corporation which is a comprehensive community development and human services organization serving the Harlem community. George Weldon is one of Harlem's leading businessmen. He has operated the George H. Weldon Funeral Home, Inc., a well-respected family owned funeral business located in Harlem, for over forty years. A committed civic and business leader, Mr. Weldon is currently a member of various boards including Empire State Funeral Directors Association, Metropolitan Funeral Directors Association, Harlem Junior Tennis League, and Vice President of LaGuardia Memorial House. He also serves as the Secretary of the Board of the Business Resource and Investment Service Center (BRISC) of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone. Active in the Harlem Business Alliance since 1987, he later served two terms as President. It was during those terms, that he led the organization into the forefront of economic development in Harlem and throughout New York City. In 1995, I appointed George Weldon to the Uptown Partnership where he currently serves as its Chairman. The Partnership was convened to bring together the diverse business communities in the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone. He also serves on the Mayor's Harlem Task Force for Conflict Resolution. A native of Harlem, Mr. Weldon served in the U.S. Army and is an Honorable Discharged veteran of World War II and the Korean Conflict. Upon leaving the Army, he attended the American Academy of Mortuary Science College where he graduated as a Licensed Funeral Director. George Weldon has received numerous awards and citations for his service and commitment to the community including the Education Alumni Group of City College of New York (Business Educator of the Year), the Metropolitan Civic League (Martin Luther King, Jr. Award), and the New York Urban League (Building Brick Award). Mr. Weldon is married and is the father of two children, both of whom have followed in his footsteps as Funeral Directors. He is also the grandfather of five. In his own words: ``Let's not only leave our children a legacy of love, but a legacy of economic empowerment.''

Mr. RANGEL

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As we close the debate on this issue, quite a number of the majority Members are concerned about the President of the United States getting involved in spending programs. I would just want the Record to be clear that the President will not be involved with any spending programs that are not supported by the majority Members in this House and the majority of the Members on the other side. So if my colleagues do not want to support any of these programs, then get together with the appropriation committees to see what we are going to do, but let us not use the legislative process to send messages to the other side or send messages to the President. Now, this is a good piece of legislation, but some of us, even though we supported the commitment to the reduction of the national debt, thought that we should have included the President's retirement plan that gave incentives for low-income workers to save. And the last time this bill was on the floor, Members had a chance to participate because it was not on the suspension calendar. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) had an amendment that would have improved upon this bill and got over 200 votes, as I recall. Many of the Members who worked on this piece of legislation that once again is before us wish that this could have been a part of the package so that all of us, in a unanimous way, could say that it helps all of the workers in different income categories. So even though I will not be supporting this in its present form, since we do not have a chance to amend it or to work with the motion to recommit, I do want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for showing that in this House we can work together in a bipartisan way.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The majority whip has now confused me. I understood from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, that we were relegislating this old legislation to send a message to the Republican leaders on the other side. However, now the majority whip wants to send a message to the President of the United States. This is really getting confusing. I mean have we given up all methods of communication completely? I know it is bad, but we do not have to legislate to talk to President Clinton. We can do these things directly. We can sit down today or tomorrow and work out how we can get some legislation passed and signed into law instead of getting out these press releases. The next speaker on this side is the coauthor of this bipartisan piece of legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House, and he worked closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). I do not know how many times we are going to drag out the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) here to show that some people do talk with each other on the House side, but I hope my Republican colleagues keep doing it until they get it right, because some of us have to get out of here and get back home. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and he is my friend, has spent a lot of time talking about the merits of these two bills that are before the House on the suspension calendar. Throughout his support, he mentions Republicans a half a dozen times, which I can understand, it is that time of the year and he needs all the help he can get. My problem is, he would have us to believe that these two bills that passed this House overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way is just not enough to move his Republican leaders on the other side of this building. And so if this is so, then we will be using the suspension calendar for everything that we do not like the progress of a piece of legislation to move Republicans that are not in this Chamber, which I think is an abuse of the privilege of the suspension calendar. But that is a political matter. What I am concerned about, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, is that there is a lot of talk about this new bill, H.R. 5203, being the same as the House-passed bill, H.R. 5173. Since the new bill is still warm in my hand as it comes off the press, and we saw it at noontime, there may be a similarity in substance; but there is a heck of a lot of difference in terms of language. There are changes in this bill that may be technical, but there are 135 lines of the new bill that is shorter than what we had in the old bill. Now, I know that some Republican expert decided which was good and which was bad, and the gentleman has a lot of time left, and I know he will explain why we do have at least in terms of numbers and pages a different bill. But another thing bothers me and that is if we do have a very important piece of legislation and they both concern the Committee on Ways and Means, and we did have an amendment to the bill when it was in the House that would allow lower-income people to have incentives for savings, why would not this bill, if it had to be revisited, why would it bypass the Committee on Ways and Means? Why would we have something that we have not even had our staffs to read, since it has just been out a couple of hours? Why do we have this urgency to get this thing done with such speed, in view of the fact that our committee has no work before it? We do not get a chance to have a motion to recommit on the suspension calendar. We do not have a chance to see whether we can improve this bill. It is not the identical bill that we passed here before. The staff knows that. I am just saying that when one takes popular ideas and believe that each time they find us supporting something they can call it bipartisan, that it has to keep on getting passed, it is not right. Democrats have worked with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the legislation, and we still think that it can be improved; but since they have given up on tax cuts and have moved swiftly to budget gimmicks, I thought we had really done all that we could the last time this thing came up, where we are now doing by legislation what President Clinton has been doing by making certain the Federal debt is being paid down. I do not know how far we have to go with this type of procedures on the floor. Democratic support was gotten before. Democratic support has to be gotten now. Since the parliamentarians indicated that this can be brought up as often as the other side wants on the suspension calendar, maybe we will have other bills that we have joined together in passing. I might suggest, though, being in the minority, one of the ways that action might be gotten from the other body is for Republicans here to talk to Republicans there. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RANGEL. Okay, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANGEL. No prohibition?

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, is it within the rules of this House under the suspension of the rules that we can bring legislation before us that has already passed the House of Representatives? We have two bills that have already passed the House and now they are coming back. Is it within the rules of the House that we can repass same bills, the same form without any changes?